Modem visual media include video and film formats. Editing film and video typically involves off-line and on-line processes. The highest quality representations of visual images include, for video media, original camera tape and, for film media, camera original film negative. Editing is typically not performed with these highest quality representations, which are preserved for production activities that follow editing.
Film editing with original negatives is avoided in order to preserve inviolate as much of the highest quality reproduction as possible. For video editing, the expense of procuring and operating the high end recording and playback equipment needed to function with the highest quality videotapes and digital files deters its use in editing. Thus, copies of the source material that are typically of somewhat lower quality than the source media are typically used for editing.
Editing decisions are made with the editing copies. For instance, with film, editing is performed with work prints, which are copies of the source negatives. This allows editing functions with equipment that is relatively inexpensive to procure and operate. Upon completion of editing, when all the editing decisions have been made using the copies, the original high quality source media are conformed to match the results of the editing process. In film editing, upon editing the work prints, a negative cutter matches the camera original negative with the edited reels of work print. Video editing is typically performed off-line to produce an edit decision list (EDL).
An EDL is typically exported from an off-line system and imported by an on-line system, which conforms the original videotape to the edit decisions listed in the EDL. The EDL technique was developed long before the existence of digital non-linear editing systems. Although very well established in fields related to video editing and production, EDLs are quite simple and somewhat narrowly focused in the information provided therein. Efforts have thus been made to replace EDLs with techniques capable of transferring from the off-line system to the on-line system more of the information that the more sophisticated digital non-linear editing (DNLE) systems now make available.
One well known effort is the Open Media Framework (OMF), which is described in the OMF™ Interchange Specification available from Avid Technology, Inc., a corporation in Tewksbury, MA. This specification states that the OMF interchange format provides a standard for the interchanging of digital media data among heterogeneous platforms. Another effort is the Advanced Authoring Format (AAF), which is described at the website (www.aafassociation.org). More particularly, as described therein at: (www.aafassociation.org/html/techinfo/index.html), the AAF is a multi-media file format, which allows the exchange of digital media and meta-data across platforms and between systems and applications. However, export products of the OMF and AAF formats tend to be somewhat complex and not readily human readable.
Further, editing applications have developed, such as Final Cut Pro™ and Cinema Tools,™ which are commercially available from Apple Computers, Inc., a corporation in Sunnyvale, Calif. Final Cut Pro™ (FCP) and other such editing applications allow the transfer of editing data and meta-data from an off-line editing system to an on-line system or another application. FCP exports information about an edited sequence and the source material of that sequence, including meta-data. FCP exports this information in an Extensible Markup Language (XML) format.
Digital systems are also used with film based editing. The information captured in the film based medium is typically first transferred to a video medium, which is then digitized into the DNLE system. The DNLE system then performs the editing operations on the film based video, just as if the original source material was videotape. However, with this technique it becomes necessary to export a film cut list that contains information relating to the editing decisions, instead of an EDL. The film cut list contains information about film edge numbers, which is needed by the negative cutter to conform the original camera negative to the editing decisions.
Where applications such as FCP are used for editing video based source material, the application exports a video EDL, which identifies (e.g., names) a video by reel. The video EDL includes time code information for use by the on-line system. Where these applications edit film based source material, the applications export a film cut list, which contains film edge numbers for conforming the original camera negative. Conceptually therefore, a video EDL and a film cut list have essentially analogous purposes and contrast with each other in their actual content: the EDL having information specifically relevant for video media and the film cut list having information specifically relevant for film based media.
Newer techniques, such as “digital intermediate,” for finishing film do not involve cutting and splicing the original camera negative to conform the off-line edited sequence. Instead, the negative is scanned a first time at a relatively low or intermediate resolution, which is used for the off-line editing. Upon reaching the editing decisions, the original camera negative is scanned a second time at high resolution. This second scan, sometimes called a “2K” scan, is typically used for performing color correction and implementing high resolution effects. A digital printer then outputs the result to film, which can be used for theatrical release.
Some high end post-production facilities perform film finishing using these digital intermediate processes. Digital intermediate facilities typically use their own internal software for importing lists from the off-line editing systems and transforming that information into their own, essentially internal formats. Interestingly, the lists that these facilities rely on for the most part do not readily incorporate any of the alternatives developed to the EDL. Thus, OMF or AAF are not generally applied, nor are applications such as FCP widely used. Instead and despite their limitations, EDL lists are widely still used.
It would appear that the reasons for the continued, modern use of EDLs for transferring editing data from off-line to on-line systems include its simplicity. Other reasons include the fact that EDLs are well known, popular and established in the field, and that they are time tested, reliable and widely supported. While newer formats such as OMF, AAF and FCP and similar formats make more information exportable than EDLs, complexity associated therewith may be deterring their widespread acceptance. Further, the newer formats are not yet well understood and little effort has been made to develop software to interface with them. Further, with the digital intermediate process, video reel and time code information from the EDL do not necessarily correlate with film edge numbers needed by the negative cutter. Where they are correlated (such as some efforts by Avid Technology, Inc.), exported information, like EDLs, is in plain text. However, plain text has limitations in transferring data from one computer platform to another. Where other formats are used however, they are less human readable than plain text.
Based on the foregoing, it would be useful to simplify the export of editing information from an off-line system.
The approaches described in this section are approaches that could be pursued, but not necessarily approaches that have been previously conceived or pursued. Therefore, unless otherwise indicated, it should not be assumed that any of the approaches described in this section qualify as prior art merely by virtue of their inclusion in this section.